Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
brendan714

Number of new caches decreasing?

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't think it's working.

Well it certainly doesn't work if you don't try.

I can post on one of the Facebook groups I mentioned above looking for a partner and have dozens people my age respond within hours.  Yet I know of only two other people in my entire city who are around my age that both hike and geocache.  To me, that's a problem.  That said, I've made some very good middle-aged friends!

To fault HQ for trying to entice younger and/or more outdoorsy adults is totally wrong.  It has nothing to do with numbers.

Anyway, back on topic, I think that enticing new players to the game and rewarding them for quality or interesting hides could be one more way to help reverse the decline in new caches that appears to be happening.

Edited by brendan714

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't think it's working. The numbers style play has been increasing since they allowed PTs. The bubble appears to be bursting. Along with more and more numbers is a lack of quality and a lack of maintenance.

I posted about this elsewhere. It's not numbers that came from powertrails, it's powertrails that came from people wanting to play for numbers, and the increased popularity of closely-knit caches led GS to effectively allow PTs by realizing they can't stop PTs, only throttle them.  So, I'd say the leaning towards numbers and quantity is a cultural shift from the people who call themselves geocachers. The "old school" still exists, and not every newcomer is all about the numbers. But with the increase in mobile gaming and instant-gratification when it comes to entertainment, geocaching also felt the effect; especially with the dramatic growth in smartphone adoption with GPS.

- Load the app, find a cache nearby in town, so that's what geocaching's about, now more quick finds get placed. A nice walking trail? Yay, more to place/find! 10k hike? enh, don't have the time or desire for that.

So yeah, the more I observe the sentiment about the current geocaching landscape, and compare with other aspects of first world culture (around the world), the more I'm seeing the parallel. Everything is affected by this new higher-tech adoption of digital pastimes. Geocaching hasn't become the way it is because Groundspeak made it that way - Groundspeak is trying to stay popular and relevant to the shifting culture... before the shift, people merely pushed the limit of what was allowed; they tried new things; and some new things were popular, but not condoned officially, and in many cases caused problems. So guidelines got bigger, thicker, complicated, in an attempt to throttle and control the growing desires for 'new' styles of play.

Challenges and PTs are probably 2 of the most recognizable shifts in the gc landscape over the last 5-7 years. And we see that with the publish numbers. Trends are temporary. Those trends affected numbers. So we see a bump in numbers, and a slow receding which, I'd wager, is heading "back" to a status quo.  At least until the next trendy 'new thing' people try within guideline allowability...

 

59 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

To fault HQ for trying to entice younger and/or more outdoorsy adults is totally wrong.  It has nothing to do with numbers.

Yep

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

 

I can post on one of the Facebook groups I mentioned above looking for a partner and have dozens people my age respond within hours.  Yet I know of only two other people in my entire city who are around my age that both hike and geocache.  To me, that's a problem.  That said, I've made some very good middle-aged friends!

 

 

Geocaching has never been about meeting new people and making friends for me. I did join and become very active when my children were small, and geocaching was promoted as a family outdoor recreation. :)

All of my Pokemon GO friends are much younger than me. No one seems to mind.:D Maybe Groundspeak needs to introduce AR to geocaching to attract the younger generation?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

Well it certainly doesn't work if you don't try.

Who's not trying? Groundspeak has been actively promoting numbers and selling the game to younger people for at least the past 5 years. The people on their blogs are almost always under 40 years old. Most places in North America and many places in Europe are saturated. Many trails and and parks are saturated usually by PT style for-the-numbers style caches.  Lots of lots of numbers style play out there. Yet, a significant decline in all those saturated areas is happening.

 

1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

 

I can post on one of the Facebook groups I mentioned above looking for a partner and have dozens people my age respond within hours.  Yet I know of only two other people in my entire city who are around my age that both hike and geocache.  To me, that's a problem.  That said, I've made some very good middle-aged friends!

To fault HQ for trying to entice younger and/or more outdoorsy adults is totally wrong.  It has nothing to do with numbers.

1

I don't fault GS for trying to get younger active/athletic types. If there's fault it is not trying to retain those who want a simple quality recreational activity for the whole family. I think we can have both. But that view is in the minority.  

Quote

Anyway, back on topic, I think that enticing new players to the game and rewarding them for quality or interesting hides could be one more way to help reverse the decline in new caches that appears to be happening.

I agree and I wonder why your young outdoorsy friends don't include geocaching in their hiking and climbing activities? Have they said? It would be interesting to know.

Perhaps geocaching doesn't provide enough substantial additional enjoyment and excitement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't fault GS for trying to get younger active/athletic types.

 

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

The emphasis on geocaching as a family activity also has dropped with most posts on the GC blog being about high terrain activities and extreme travel, instead of leisurely outdoor fun with all members of a family.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your previous post made it seem like you think the focus of the GC blog should be more geared towards on 'fun for the whole family' rather than the occasional physically challenging / technical cache and associated "numbers".  Seeing the fascinating high terrain caches on the blog really appeals to me (much moreso than, say, church micros).  But I think both are important and relevant to different people.

 

14 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I agree and I wonder why your young outdoorsy friends don't include geocaching in their hiking and climbing activities? Have they said? It would be interesting to know.

One of the biggest reasons lately is that I tell them all about these cool geocaches hidden in the mountains, then they download the app and can't see anything higher than a 1.5 terrain (ie they see absolutely nothing in the mountains).  But it seems like that will hopefully be fixed at some point?  I still think the vast majority of outdoor enthusiasts around here have never even heard of geocaching.  At least that's the impression I get.  Word of mouth only gets so far.  And to have potential new users download the app only to be disappointed certainly doesn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, brendan714 said:

To fault HQ for trying to entice younger and/or more outdoorsy adults is totally wrong.  It has nothing to do with numbers.

It's totally about numbers. Like most all companies, HQ wants more customers. The problem is, they're trying to entice every single phone and mobile device user on the planet. For most of these people, the geocaching app is just another game to play. They aren't responsible or liable for anything they do with the app and as soon as they tire of it, move on to something else. Phone apps have certainly certainly contributed to the current "i want it, i deserve it, and give it to me now, but without any strings attached" culture.

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

9 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

The problem is, they're trying to entice every single phone and mobile device user on the planet. For most of these people, the geocaching app is just another game to play. They aren't responsible or liable for anything they do with the app and as soon as they tire of it, move on to something else. Phone apps have certainly certainly contributed to the current "i want it, i deserve it, and give it to me now, but without any strings attached" culture.

That seems like a fairly generalized statement with no proof with which to back it up.  I, personally, am part of that counterargument - I have and regularly use a geocaching phone app, and know many active, responsible cachers who do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

Seeing the fascinating high terrain caches on the blog really appeals to me (much moreso than, say, church micros).

Those are 2 ends of the spectrum. Most families want more then a bit of paper to sign, and I expect that most children, early teens really aren't all that interested about finding a bison tube on a church fence. More quality mid-range, inclusive caches that appeal to a wide audience might hold the interest of families who cache together.  There are lots of caches for those who just want a bit of paper to sign.

Quote

One of the biggest reasons lately is that I tell them all about these cool geocaches hidden in the mountains, then they download the app and can't see anything higher than a 1.5 terrain

Not a problem anymore. The app has opened up to Canadians. It will be interesting to see the difference it makes. Keep us posted.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

I have a couple other hobbies (not caching type) I do and I noticed less caches being put out. And the ones that are, are by newbies that I am finding coordinates off or poorly placed. Even some of them get tired of having to maintain and then leave them to be archived by the reviewer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thinking about our area after the explosion of power trails a few years ago, there simply isn't the space for tons of new cache placements even if the interest level is there.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, narcissa said:

Thinking about our area after the explosion of power trails a few years ago, there simply isn't the space for tons of new cache placements even if the interest level is there.

I dunno, I still see a lot of roads in your area that are open for more power trails.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

I still see a lot of roads in your area that are open for more power trails.

Ah, but is it a powertrail if it's P&G's along a road?  :ph34r:

 

(ref to a different discussion; imo: yes it's a powertrail by concept ;P)

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Ah, but is it a powertrail if it's P&G's along a road?  :ph34r:

[...]

Yes. It's a Power-t-rail. ;-)
Guess what t stands for. :D

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, brendan714 said:

 

That seems like a fairly generalized statement with no proof with which to back it up.  I, personally, am part of that counterargument - I have and regularly use a geocaching phone app, and know many active, responsible cachers who do the same.

I have the app as well. I do use it every once in a great while. I've seen several posters on here state the same thing, some even saying they use the phone exclusively. The phone app works fine but i still think that the majority of people see it as just another game app. I haven't tried to run the numbers but it's very obvious in our area that geocaching has been a revolving door the last year or two. Very few newcomers stay with us very long. Most find a few, maybe hide a couple, and then vanish.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, narcissa said:

Thinking about our area after the explosion of power trails a few years ago, there simply isn't the space for tons of new cache placements even if the interest level is there.

I feel this different way. If I see a powertrail on some area, it makes the hole area uninteresting. This is some psychological phenomena. It is more satisfying to find the last cache from some area than the first one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, arisoft said:

I feel this different way. If I see a powertrail on some area, it makes the hole area uninteresting. This is some psychological phenomena. It is more satisfying to find the last cache from some area than the first one.

How is this relevant to cache placement?

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

I dunno, I still see a lot of roads in your area that are open for more power trails.

If they were feasible for sustainable powertrail or other cache placements they would have gotten scooped up a few years ago when things were really hot. This area was very saturated with a highly active caching population and regular cache hiding events.

I don't know where other users are located but in my area we don't see a lot of the roadside trails close to, or within, the city.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, narcissa said:

I don't know where other users are located but in my area we don't see a lot of the roadside trails close to, or within, the city.

That's normal for any town. You need rural roads in order to hide a trail effectively, otherwise you run into private property conflicts, plus the risk of interfering with traffic patterns. The only time I've seen power trails in town have been on bike and walking paths which are often surrounded by greenspace.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, narcissa said:

How is this relevant to cache placement?

Area with many caches may not look interesting to place more caches for similar reasons when the powertrail draws attention. This does not have effect for new mystery caches as there is different game among them.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, narcissa said:
18 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

I dunno, I still see a lot of roads in your area that are open for more power trails.

If they were feasible for sustainable powertrail or other cache placements they would have gotten scooped up a few years ago when things were really hot. This area was very saturated with a highly active caching population and regular cache hiding events.

Not necessarily,  There are several rail trails that only had a couple of caches along them until a couple of years ago.  In general, the local population is probably less active than it was a few years ago, but the power trail mentality didn't cache on until a more recently.  So far it's mostly one person saturating these trails but I've looked at many other areas and have seen a few a couple of longer trails, placed followed by several other locals placing a large series of caches.  To me, it's not a single power trail that impacts cache placement but a power trail mentality where instead of choosing a few good locations along a trail or road, the goal is to place as many as possible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

That's normal for any town. You need rural roads in order to hide a trail effectively, otherwise you run into private property conflicts, plus the risk of interfering with traffic patterns. The only time I've seen power trails in town have been on bike and walking paths which are often surrounded by greenspace.

So yeah, your comments about my area seem to contradict each other. I live in a large-ish city that is pretty cache saturated with caches. As I said before, that's going to inhibit cache placement even if the interest is there.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

Area with many caches may not look interesting to place more caches for similar reasons when the powertrail draws attention. This does not have effect for new mystery caches as there is different game among them.

An area with many caches shouldn't look interesting for cache placement... because it is already full of caches.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2017 at 2:29 PM, brendan714 said:

I was out geocaching with a friend last night, when we both mentioned how it's felt like there haven't been very many geocaches published lately in our city of 1.2 million+ compared to last year or the year before.  That led me to do some searching.  Here is a list of the number of geocaches published per year in my city over the last 10 years:

2008 - 585
2009 - 622
2010 - 659
2011 - 608
2012 - 671
2013 - 537
2014 - 602
2015 - 867
2016 - 581
2017 - 257 (up to Nov. 10, 2017)

So we aren't imagining things - there are far fewer new geocaches this year compared to the average.  I know that the year isn't over yet, but November and December is typically a slow time for geocaching here.

Some obvious possible reasons for this might be that there are fewer unique hiding spots, fewer geocachers, geocachers who aren't willing to hide new/more caches, and/or a lack of new or different gameplay elements to entice hiders.

Have you noticed this around you too?

EDIT: Use THIS LINK if you'd like to check your own area.  Change the location, distance and year.

Maybe cachers are running out of room on the game board. I don't worry about these kinds of things. There are plenty of caches in the world to go find, and worrying about "declining numbers" all the time is not necessary in my opinion. I've only found a little over a thousand caches with no end in sight. 

 

Cache on. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Maybe cachers are running out of room on the game board. I don't worry about these kinds of things. There are plenty of caches in the world to go find, and worrying about "declining numbers" all the time is not necessary in my opinion. I've only found a little over a thousand caches with no end in sight. 

 

Cache on. 

I think it's more significant if the number of finds are decreasing, rather then the number of hides.

Around here, once the for-the-numbers geocachers finish up, there's not much in the way of finds.

For example one of my traditional hides, walk in a nature area, D1/T2.5 got 40 finds in 2015 (it's first year of placement). 9 in 2016. 5 in 2017.

Another similar traditional cache of ours, walk in the woods, D1.5/T2 got 57 finds in 2005 (first year), 51 finds in 2006, 29 finds in 2007, 37 finds in 2008.

Hmmm. Maybe this is part of the problem.

There are so many caches out there. But fewer people finding them. It's not so rewarding as a hider anymore. I know the few visits provide little incentive and today I got yet another log: 'Spent the day trying to find a bunch of multi/puzzles and yours was one of them, TFTC'. It just doesn't inspire or motivate me like it use to back in 2005.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think it's more significant if the number of finds are decreasing, rather then the number of hides.

Around here, once the for-the-numbers geocachers finish up, there's not much in the way of finds.

For example one of my traditional hides, walk in a nature area, D1/T2.5 got 40 finds in 2015 (it's first year of placement). 9 in 2016. 5 in 2017.

Another similar traditional cache of ours, walk in the woods, D1.5/T2 got 57 finds in 2005 (first year), 51 finds in 2006, 29 finds in 2007, 37 finds in 2008.

Hmmm. Maybe this is part of the problem.

There are so many caches out there. But fewer people finding them. It's not so rewarding as a hider anymore. I know the few visits provide little incentive and today I got yet another log: 'Spent the day trying to find a bunch of multi/puzzles and yours was one of them, TFTC'. It just doesn't inspire or motivate me like it use to back in 2005.

This analysis is flawed. You should compare similar new caches across time. Find frequency on individual caches naturally declines over time because people typically only find a cache once.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Today I have a conversation with another geocacher about this issue. One interesting theory came in my mind. Did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

Today I have a conversation with another geocacher about this issue. One interesting theory came in my mind. Did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?

The change in mindset over the last few years is what is hurting our hobby. The allowance and condoning of power trails, the phone app put out there to catch the eye of every person on the planet, and the emergence of every geocaching statistic imaginable have helped to bring about this change. Smileys, souvenirs, and other quick easy "feel goods" are the big things now days, However, i believe these things fall short in keeping people's interest for very long which results in them moving on to something else. The favorite point system does have its flaws but it isn't the problem.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

The favorite point system does have its flaws but it isn't the problem.

True, but did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?  Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

True, but did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?  Yes or no?

 

Every time the heated debate of quality vs quantity arise, I remember that our beloved pastime started with a can of beans in a middle of a common field. Today we have caches in most of the world ex-libris, which for me is a huge upgrade. :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Around here, once the for-the-numbers geocachers finish up, there's not much in the way of finds.

For example one of my traditional hides, walk in a nature area, D1/T2.5 got 40 finds in 2015 (it's first year of placement). 9 in 2016. 5 in 2017.

What does this have to do with "for-the-numbers"? You plant new caches, people are going to come find them. It has nothing to do with numbers. All these numbers show me is that there are about 30 or 40 cachers in your area that have found most of the caches -- or, at least, most of the caches as good as yours -- so when new caches are planted, they will soon come find them because they like finding caches, not because they have any interest in numbers. That's true for me and normal in my area, and I assume it's common everywhere.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

True, but did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?  Yes or no?

Even if it did, that doesn't mean that the favorite system caused the decline.  I guess it would mean that the favorite system did not cause an increase in the number of quality caches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

Even if it did, that doesn't mean that the favorite system caused the decline.  I guess it would mean that the favorite system did not cause an increase in the number of quality caches.

I think that the favorite system was meant to increase number of quality caches. Do you suspect that this goal wasn't achieved?

Share this post


Link to post

Similar to dprovan and pretty basic, when new caches come out, locals get them.  Eventually all local caches are found by the locals, and visitation for those caches slows to passersby and new folks.  I thought that was the same everywhere. 

I'd be considered a "for-the-numbers" cacher if it meant simply found in the same year placed... :D

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I think that the favorite system was meant to increase number of quality caches. Do you suspect that this goal wasn't achieved?

 

Certainly we both agree that the vast majority of the most Favorited caches are indeed quality caches. Don't we?


Let's put it this way: Not every Favorited cache has quality, but all cache with lots of Favorites have it.

I would say that although the system may be wrongly used, it succeeds on flagging good (quality) caches, whatsoever.

Edited by RuideAlmeida

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, arisoft said:

Today I have a conversation with another geocacher about this issue. One interesting theory came in my mind. Did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?

I thought it started when  "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" was removed.  :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Certainly we both agree that the vast majority of the most Favorited caches are indeed quality caches. Don't we?

Can you say whether they are of good quality for that reason or not?

Maybe we could compare geocaches made before and after favorite system was introduced to tell if is there any change to better.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Can you say whether they are of good quality for that reason or not?

Maybe we could compare geocaches made before and after favorite system was introduced to tell if is there any change to better.

 

We can look at it by to sides.

1. You think that the Favorite system was set to promote new good caches. In your opinion it failed.

2. I think that the Favorite system was set to promote good caches... old and new. In my opinion that goal was achieved.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

1. You think that the Favorite system was set to promote new good caches. In your opinion it failed.

2. I think that the Favorite system was set to promote good caches... old and new. In my opinion that goal was achieved.

It would be physically impossible to make more old caches. You think that the goal was not to get better caches when favorite system was introduced?

For my theory it is not important, why favorite system was introduced. The question is, did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?

If there is no turning point in cache quality at the same time, then we could answer no, but otherwise, it is worth investigating more.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It would be physically impossible to make more old caches.

 

But you started to be able to Favorited all the caches previously published (except Events). That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

But you started to be able to Favorited all the caches previously published (except Events). That's the point.

You are getting closer. Now you have to compare rates of favorites given to caches published before and after that day to get the answer based on facts statistics.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

What does this have to do with "for-the-numbers"?

Sorry, that's my bias showing. In my area the cachers that are left playing are predominately for-numbers players. I should have said local geocachers.

My major point is that there is a dramatic drop after the first year, compared to 10 years ago. Why? Maybe because there's much more to choose from. But then again Project-GC shows an overall drop in all finds.

Edited by L0ne.R
Added more to the end.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

True, but did the fall of quality caches start after introducing the favorite system?  Yes or no?

You're assuming that the quality of caches has fallen, but is that really true? Or is it just that most of the poor quality caches hidden a decade or more ago have long since disappeared so all that remains of the older caches are the well-made ones that have stood the test of time?

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

You're assuming that the quality of caches has fallen, but is that really true? Or is it just that most of the poor quality caches hidden a decade or more ago have long since disappeared so all that remains of the older caches are the well-made ones that have stood the test of time?

Personally I have feeling that something has changed but my view is limited. Anyway, if the number of new caches is decreasing as the title says, does that mean that there is less but better new caches now?

Share this post


Link to post

There is so much more poor quality caches out there since the "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" was removed, that it's hard to find quality.

It also depends on what "quality" is.

If it means a well-maintained, watertight cache container in a  pleasant location, those have become harder to find among the predominate PT-style caches. The norm is  caches hidden primarily to increase the smiley count; caches placed then never returned to by the cache owner; caches placed with the intention of having other people maintain the cache or eventually archived by a reviewer.

For example a 1 litre Lock&Lock(TM) in a stump in a quiet forest by a babbling brook, rarely gets a favorite point. But a centrifuge tube in a golf ball placed by a golf course entrance, will get a LOT of favorites.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, arisoft said:
25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

You're assuming that the quality of caches has fallen, but is that really true? Or is it just that most of the poor quality caches hidden a decade or more ago have long since disappeared so all that remains of the older caches are the well-made ones that have stood the test of time?

Personally I have feeling that something has changed but my view is limited. Anyway, if the number of new caches is decreasing as the title says, does that mean that there is less but better new caches now?

These are this year's eleven new caches in my local government area: GC6ZBT2, GC6ZEP0, GC6ZZAW, GC70W4B, GC70YHG, GC77C75, GC78F4Z, GC752YF, GC7BPTY, GC7CKH9, GC7D9A7. While I can't comment on the quality of the ones I own, I wouldn't consider any of the others to be rubbish. This is a very small sample, I know, but my impression is that, at least in this part of the world, the number of new caches has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years but the quality of those that have appeared is generally quite good.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

These are this year's eleven new caches in my local government area: GC6ZBT2, GC6ZEP0, GC6ZZAW, GC70W4B, GC70YHG, GC77C75, GC78F4Z, GC752YF, GC7BPTY, GC7CKH9, GC7D9A7. While I can't comment on the quality of the ones I own, I wouldn't consider any of the others to be rubbish. This is a very small sample, I know, but my impression is that, at least in this part of the world, the number of new caches has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years but the quality of those that have appeared is generally quite good.

GC6ZBT2 

It's not being maintained. :( And it's not even a year old. 

c1bd512d-934a-491f-a075-a5a9db9e7d5f.jpg

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

https://coord.info/GC7BPTY

"Came back to try again. This time I put the cords into google earth. Must better cache was found quickly then and log signed."

Most recent November log:

"Found it. No treasures. Needs new container as water damaged. Couldn't even write in the log book. Really needs to be upgraded :)"

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

GC6ZBT2 

It's not being maintained. :(

c1bd512d-934a-491f-a075-a5a9db9e7d5f.jpg

Did you read the logs or just look at the pictures? That was about six months ago, shortly afterwards someone said they "removed the mouldy thing" that was on top of the log (I gather from those logs that the mouldy thing wasn't the log itself), and if you look at the log for the 26th of October, you'll see that the CO was amongst the group who visited it then.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

https://coord.info/GC7BPTY

"Came back to try again. This time I put the cords into google earth. Must better cache was found quickly then and log signed."

Most recent November log:

"Found it. No treasures. Needs new container as water damaged. Couldn't even write in the log book. Really needs to be upgraded :)"

Oh come on, please! I was 2TF on that cache and the coordinates were spot on. Just because one person had GPS problems isn't a fault of the cache or the CO. Yes, the most recent log indicates a water problem, but that was only a week ago. Does that make it abandoned rubbish?

Share this post


Link to post

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make out that those eleven are somehow the epitome of cache quality, they're just the sum total of new caches this year in my LGA and I don't think they're any worse than when I first started caching in 2013. Indeed, my very first find was a 35mm film pot sitting on the ground under a tuft of grass at the base of a lamp post (our lamp posts don't have skirts) and was archived by its owner a few days later as he thought it was becoming too problematic.

Not every cache is going to be an ammo can with an amazing view, some will be poorly designed or poorly placed and some won't stand the test of time. Newcomers will make mistakes while they're still learning the ropes, and even seasoned cachers can sometimes be caught out with containers that don't work as expected, like my most recent hide (GC7CKH9). That's always been the case and always will be.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×